Effects of feedback in an online algebra intervention

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Volumn 17, Issue 1-2, 2012, Pages 43-59

  Bokhove, Christian ^a   Drijvers, Paul ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Algebra; Design; Expertise; Feedback; Formative assessment; ICT; Skills

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACTING; COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION; DESIGN; E-LEARNING; FEEDBACK;

AUTOMATIC FEEDBACK; DIGITAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT; EDUCATION DESIGNS; EXPERTISE; FEEDBACK PRINCIPLE; FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT; RELEVANT FEEDBACK; SKILLS;

ALGEBRA;

EID: 84892671699     PISSN: 22111662     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10758-012-9191-8     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Arcavi, A. (1994). Symbol Sense: Informal sense-making in formal mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(3), 24-35.
2. Arcavi, A. (2005). Developing and using symbol sense in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 25(2), 42-47.
3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-149.
4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2004). The formative purpose: Assessment must first promote learning. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 103(2), 20-50.
5. Bokhove, C. (2008, June). Use of ICT in formative scenarios for algebraic skills. Paper presented at the 4th conference of the International Society for Design and Development in Education, Egmond aan Zee, The Netherlands.
6. Bokhove, C. (2010). Implementing feedback in a digital tool for symbol sense. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 17(3), 121-126.
7. Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2010a). Digital tools for algebra education: Criteria and evaluation. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(1), 45-62.
8. Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2010b). Symbol sense behavior in digital activities. For the Learning of Mathematics, 30(3), 43-49.
9. Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2012). Effects of a digital intervention on the development of algebraic expertise. Computers & Education, 58(1), 197-208. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.010.
10. Clariana, R. B. (1990). A comparison of answer until correct feedback and knowledge of correct response feedback under two conditions of contextualization. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 17(4), 125-129.
11. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
12. Drijvers, P., Goddijn, A., & Kindt, M. (2010). Algebra education: Exploring topics and themes. In P. Drijvers (Ed.), Secondary algebra education. Revisiting topics and themes and exploring the unknown (pp. 5-26). Rotterdam: Sense.
13. Garson, D. (2011). Structural equation modeling. Retrieved from http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/standard.htm.
14. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
15. Heeren, B., & Jeuring, J. (2010). Adapting mathematical domain reasoners. In Proceedings of MKM 2010, the 9th International Conference on Mathematical Knowledge Management Vol. 6167. Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 315-330). Berlin: Springer.
16. Jones, R. M., & Fleischman, E. S. (2001). Cascade explains and informs the utility of fading examples to problems. In J.D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.) Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 459-464). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
17. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379-424.
18. Kilpatrick, J. E., Swafford, J. E., & Findell, B. E. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
19. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. Mason, B. J., & Bruning, R. (2001). Providing feedback in computer-based instruction: What the research tells us. Retrieved from http://dwb.unl.edu/Edit/MB/MasonBruning.html.
21. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Gopalakrishnan, M., & Casey, J. (1995). The effects of feedback and incentives on achievement in computer-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(1), 32-50.
22. National council of teachers of mathematics. (2008). The role of technology in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/about/content.aspx?id=14233.
23. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Große, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works - a cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32(1/2), 59-82. (Pubitemid 39045930)
24. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 253-286. (Pubitemid 38157515)
25. Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59-89.
26. Tall, D. (1977). Cognitive conflict and the learning of mathematics. In Proceedings of the First Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Utrecht, Netherlands: PME. Retrieved from http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot1977a-cog-confl-pme.pdf.
27. Tessmer, M. (1993). Planning and conducting formative evaluations. Abingdon: Routledge
28. US Department of Education. (2007). National mathematics advisory panel preliminary report. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/ mathpanel/pre-report.pdf
29. Van Hiele, P. M. V. (1985). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education. Orlando: Academic Press.
30. VanLehn, K., Jones, R. M., & Chi, M. T. H. (1992). A model of the self-explanation effect. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(1), 1-59.
31. Vasilyeva, E., Puuronen, S., Pechenizkiy, M., & Rasanen, P. (2007). Feedback adaptation in web-based learning systems. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 17(4/5), 337-357. (Pubitemid 351331240)